Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 10 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 3533 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

It is interesting that Mr Wood's defence seemed to imply that we weren't serious: "It's a joke. They're just doing this for fun. They're going through the motions."I assure Mr Wood that it is absolutely serious. It is a matter of principle. It is a fundamental matter that this Assembly puts in place the government that puts in place the executive.

I bet the government spin doctors have been down to the media suite over in the far wing saying "It's a joke! Don't take this seriously. They're just wasting time."We are not wasting time; we are saying that you are accountable. Mr Corbell now proposes this: "I am willing to go to the next Assembly and be accountable there."According to that flawed logic, governments are only accountable every three years, and the nine members apart from the Labor Party are now irrelevant because they have no right, having brought a government to this place, to ask it to explain what it is doing and to ask it to follow the will of the majority of members here, who are elected by the people of the ACT.

Based on my experience as a minister and the things Mr Corbell and others did to me, I expected that, when you passed a motion of this nature, the government would take it seriously. I actually expected a successful outcome. What the motion does not say is that the government will institute a land swap or the government will pay suitable compensation. It says that the ACT government "negotiate". The minister should look up "negotiate"in his dictionary. It says "confer with".

That would have been easy: "Hi! How do you feel about land swap? No? Okay. Cool. I'll tell the Assembly. I'll keep going with the meetings with a view to compromise or agreement."If we did not want compromise or agreement, "negotiate"would not have been in the motion. The second point says to "bring about by negotiation". That is what the Assembly probably meant: bring about by negotiating. But no negotiation was undertaken. Nothing was attempted. The third is to "transfer for another consideration". There is your land swap.

To "clear up"or "get over or through"are the other meanings of "negotiate". But Mr Corbell did not negotiate. Mr Corbell did not try. Mr Corbell did not seek to put any effort into carrying out what the Assembly had asked of him. I think that is the crux of the matter today. If the government did not agree with the motion and voted against it, that is irrelevant.

We as a government did not agree with some of the motions that ultimately led to the establishment of the Gallop inquiry. We did not agree to a draft variation that allowed the preservation of Old Red Hill in its current form, but we took on board what the Assembly said and we took it seriously. It is irrelevant whether or not the government agreed to it or liked it or wanted to do it. We were asked to do it.

The words in this motion could have been much stronger: "The government will land swap. The government will pay compensation."We did not say that. We said that the ACT government should negotiate, and that is what they should have done. Mr Corbell would have been quite within his rights to come back in here and say "I have negotiated, and I think it's unacceptable. I seek your guidance."That is how it works. I have heard mini smokescreens and mini disingenuous arguments, but the ones that have been presented today by the government really do take the cake.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .